DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/27/26 have been fully considered and the argument of prior arts as combined would only “manualize an automatic activity” related to “user interface supported by the housing for inputting parameters” has been reconsidered at great length and such argument has been found unpersuasive.
Since, as per MPEP, the rational related to “automatic vs manual operation” cut the same way, merely changing whether a known function is performed by hand versus by a mechanism without more, is treated as an obvious choice , wherein combining such known methods only yield to predictable results.
Thus, since the prior art as in Franco, explicitly disclose of the “interface for inputting one or more input parameters (fig.2 (250); col.13 line 30-50 & col.14 line 1-30/mechanism to input such input parameters so as to generate adjusted sound filed accordingly).
Thus, although, the prior art never mentioned of user interface inputting the input parameter, But, Wodrich et al. disclose of the similar concept related to a user interface associated with a device housing (fig.3 (334); col.9 line 45-50). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the mentioned interface to add any other desired interface including the mentioned user interface for achieving the same result as for allowing the user to manually configured the setting as desired for achieving the same desired result accordingly.
Also, the applicant, argued that according to independent claim 20, the prior art as in Small et al. failed to specify as “a communication system supported by the housing and configured for communicating with a first adjacent speaker and a second adjacent speaker”/.
According to KSR analysis, there may be flexible approach to obviousness consideration according to precedents, when combined prior arts would lead to predictable results, in that regard Although, the art, never limit of the second adjacent speaker associated with the housing and configured for communicating with a first adjacent speaker and a second adjacent speaker, but one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the communication of the system with the adjunct speaker as mentioned by adding such any amount of adjacent speaker including if desired such specific communication system supported by the housing and configured for communicating with a first adjacent speaker and a second adjacent speaker and to be configured accordingly for achieving the same result as to automatically operated according to desired mode based on the stacked configurations.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-5, 24-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franco (US 12,413,924 B2) and Wodrich et al. (US 10,897,680 B2).
A loudspeaker comprising: a housing (fig.2 (204); fig.3-4 (104); col.4 line 1-20/the unit/housing of speaker is mentioned to move around); one or more transducers within the housing (fig.2 (248); fig.3-4; col.6 line 48-52); and a control system for controlling the one or more transducers (fig.2 (242/244/250); col.12 line 25-55), the control system comprising: an interface supported by the housing, the interface having one or more input elements for inputting one or more input parameters, wherein the input parameters include a speaker spatial parameter and/or venue spatial parameters (fig.2 (250); col.13 line 30-50 & col.14 line 1-30), and a processor within the housing that is operatively coupled to the user interface and the one or more transducers, wherein the processor is configured to perform an optimization routine in which the processor determines one or more control parameters for the one or more transducers based on the one or more input parameters (fig.2 (242); col.7 line 40-50 & col.8 line 15-40).
However, Franco never specify of the interface as being a user interface. But, Wodrich et al. disclose of the similar concept related to a user interface associated with a device housing (fig.3 (334); col.9 line 45-50). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the mentioned interface to add any other desired interface including the mentioned user interface for same reason as allowing the user to manually configured the setting as desired.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franco (US 12,413,924 B2) and Wodrich et al. (US 10,897,680 B2) and Horbach et al. (US 10,645,516 B2).
The loudspeaker according to claim 1, wherein the one or more input parameters includes a speaker spatial parameter (franco-col.14 line 1-230). But, the prior art never specify of the input parameter include a plurality of venue spatial parameters.
But, Horbach et al. disclose of the similar aspect concerning input parameter include a plurality of venue spatial parameters (fig.2 (36); col.12 line 30-35). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such specific aspect concerning input parameter include a plurality of venue spatial parameters so as to provide the particular output parameter for sweet spot based on user’s input configurations.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franco (US 12,413,924 B2) and Wodrich et al. (US 10,897,680 B2) and small et al. (US 11,153,680 B2).
The loudspeaker according to claim 1, However, Franco et al. failed to disclose of the communication system wherein: the control system includes a communication system supported by the housing and configured for communicating with a first adjacent speaker and a second adjacent speaker, and the processor is configured to perform an array building routine in which the processor determines an array configuration for the loudspeaker based on incoming data from the communication system.
However, small et al. disclosed of the concept related to a communication system supported by the housing and configured for communicating with an adjacent speaker, and the processor is configured to perform an array building routine in which the processor determines an array configuration for the loudspeaker based on incoming data from the communication system (fig.8; col.7 line 1-35). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such communication system supported by the housing and configured for communicating with a first adjacent speaker, and the processor is configured to perform an array building routine in which the processor determines an array configuration for the loudspeaker based on incoming data from the communication system so as to automatically operated according to desired mode based on the stacked configurations
Although, the art, never limit of the second adjacent speaker associated with the housing and configured for communicating with a first adjacent speaker and a second adjacent speaker, but one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the communication of the system with the adjunct speaker as mentioned by adding such any amount of adjacent speaker including if desired such specific communication system supported by the housing and configured for communicating with a first adjacent speaker and a second adjacent speaker and to be configured accordingly for achieving the same result as to automatically operated according to desired mode based on the stacked configurations.
Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franco (US 12,413,924 B2) and small et al. (US 11,153,680 B2).
Claim 20, Franco et al. disclose of a loudspeaker comprising: a housing (fig.2 (204); fig.3-4 (104); col.4 line 1-20/the unit/housing of speaker is mentioned to move around); one or more transducers within the housing (fig.2 (248); fig.3-4; col.6 line 48-52); and a control system for controlling the one or more transducers, the control system comprising: a communication system supported by the housing and a processor within the housing that is operatively coupled to the one or more transducers (fig.2 (250); col.13 line 30-50 & col.14 line 1-30).
However, the prior art herein Jin et al. failed to disclose as the control system comprising: the communication system being configured for communicating with a first adjacent speaker and a second adjacent speaker, wherein the processor is configured to perform an array building routine in which the processor determines an array configuration for the loudspeaker based on incoming data from the communication system.
However, small et al. disclosed of the concept related to a communication system supported by the housing and configured for communicating with an adjacent speaker, and the processor is configured to perform an array building routine in which the processor determines an array configuration for the loudspeaker based on incoming data from the communication system (fig.8; col.7 line 1-35). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such communication system supported by the housing and configured for communicating with a first adjacent speaker, and the processor is configured to perform an array building routine in which the processor determines an array configuration for the loudspeaker based on incoming data from the communication system so as to automatically operated according to desired mode based on the stacked configurations
Although, the art, never limit of the second adjacent speaker associated with the housing and configured for communicating with a first adjacent speaker and a second adjacent speaker, but one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the communication of the system with the adjunct speaker as mentioned by adding such any amount of adjacent speaker including if desired such specific communication system supported by the housing and configured for communicating with a first adjacent speaker and a second adjacent speaker and to be configured accordingly for achieving the same result as to automatically operated according to desired mode based on the stacked configurations.
The loudspeaker according to claim 20, wherein the communication system includes: a first communication device configured for communicating with the first adjacent speaker (small-fig.6, 8 (158/160); ; col.7 line 1-35/various mean to implement communications).
Although, the art never specify as the system includes a second communication device configured for communicating with the second adjacent speaker, again one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the communication device for configuring communication with adjacent speaker as mentioned, by adding such noted second adjacent speaker and including the second communication device configured for communicating with the second adjacent speaker for achieving the same result as per engineering as to automatically distribute data and signal automatically based on the stacked configuration.
The loudspeaker according to claim 7, wherein the array building routine includes a step in which the processor determines whether the first communication device and second communication device respectively detect a first incoming signal and a second incoming signal (Nanik-fig.1-2 (4-5); col.3 line 15-40).
The loudspeaker according to claim 21, wherein the array building routine includes a subroutine in which the processor: operates the second communication device to transmit outgoing data based on data associated with the speaker, and determines the array configuration for the loudspeaker based on the incoming data from the second communication device (small- col.7 line 55-67/either connection contacts served to establish circuit and signal connection).
The loudspeaker according to claim 21, wherein: the array building routine includes a step in which the processor determines whether the first communication device and second communication device respectively detect a first incoming signal and a second incoming signal, and the processor is configured to perform the subroutine in response to a condition in which the first communication device does not detect the first incoming signal and the second communication device detects the second incoming signal (small- col.7 line 55-67/either connection contacts served to establish circuit and signal connection).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DISLER PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chin, Vivian can be reached at (571) 272-7848. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DISLER PAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights